linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] kvm: Destroy & free KVM devices on release

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:33:38 +0200
From:	Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
To:	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, aik@...abs.ru, pbonzini@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] kvm: Destroy & free KVM devices on release

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 08:30:22AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 12:40 +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:13:22AM -0600, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > The KVM device interface allocates a struct kvm_device and calls
> > > kvm_device_ops.create on it from KVM VM ioctl KVM_CREATE_DEVICE.
> > > This returns a file descriptor to the user for them to set/get/check
> > > further attributes.  On closing the file descriptor, one would assume
> > > that kvm_device_ops.destroy is called and all traces of the device
> > > would go away.  One would be wrong, it actually does nothing more
> > > than release the struct kvm reference, waiting until the VM is
> > > destroyed before doing more.  This leaves devices that only want a
> > > single instance of themselves per VM in a tough spot.
> > > 
> > This is by design. Otherwise locking will be needed on each device access
> > and for interrupt controllers this is unnecessary serialization and
> > overhead. Device API is not designed for devices that can go away while
> > machine is running anyway, so after creation device is only destroyed
> > during VM destruction.
> 
> Hmm, ok.  In that case I can drop this patch and I think the rest just
> boils down to userspace use of the device.  I had been close()'ing the
> kvm device fd when all QEMU vfio devices are detached, but I can just as
> easily leave it open in case a new device is added later.  I'll send out
> a new series after doing some more review and testing.  Do you have any
> comments on the rest of the series?  Thanks,
> 
If I understand 4/4 correctly if there is VFIO device connected we
assume non coherent domain. How hard it would be to do proper checking
in this path series?

--
			Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/